Absolute monarchies are those in which all
power is given to or, as is more often the case, taken by, the monarch.
Examples of absolute power corrupting are Roman emperors (who declared
themselves gods) and Napoleon Bonaparte (who declared himself an
emperor).
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" arose
as part of a quotation by the expansively named and impressively
hirsute John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton
(1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply
as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell
Creighton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
The text is a favourite of collectors of
quotations and is always included in anthologies. If you are looking for
the exact "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely" wording, then Acton is your man. He didn't invent the idea
though; quotations very like it had been uttered by several authors well
before 1887. Primary amongst them was another English politician with
no shortage of names - William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham and
British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, who said something similar in a
speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
Acton is likely to have taken his lead
from the writings of the French republican poet and politician, again a
generously titled individual - Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de
Lamartine. An English translation of Lamartine's essay France and
England: a Vision of the Future was published in London in 1848 and
included this text:
It is not only the slave or serf who is
ameliorated in becoming free... the master himself did not gain less in
every point of view,... for absolute power corrupts the best natures.
Whether it is Lamartine or his anonymous
English translator that can claim to have coined 'absolute power
corrupts' we can't be sure, but we can be sure that it wasn't Lord
Acton.
Editorial Comment
Whenever the too
much power is concentrated into the hands too few individuals a
situation exists that leads to tyranny. When power is diffused over many
the potential for the abuse of power is greatly diminished. Is justice
likely to take place in a society where 9 lawyers appointed by the
President and confirmed by a Senate have the ultimate authority to
decide what is right and what is wrong.
The power of the
Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution was not
granted to it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was given the task
to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In 1803 Chief Justice
John Marshall in the Marybury versus Madison decision declared that the
Supreme Court had the lawful authority to be the final arbiter of the
Constitution. This power was not delegated to the court, it was an
implied power.
This
unauthorized assumption of power has led to the concentration of power
into to the hands of Justices that are not accountable to anyone. If the
Supreme Court makes a mistake, who is there to prevent a miscarriage of
justice? If they people are sovereign then the people should be the
ones to decide what is just and what is unjust. Since we live in a
Republic the spokesmen for "We the People" is the County Sheriff. When
the Sheriff takes office he or she swears to uphold the Constitution.
How is it possible for a Sheriff to honor his oath when he is subject to
the authority of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment